Browse Companies

Explore all 145.5K companies with CFPB consumer complaints

145,512 companies

Sort by: Name Most Complaints Timely Response Most Recent
Company Complaints
which violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) : No reasonable investigation or results within 30 days FCRA 607 ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 623 ( b ) : Continued reporting of unverifiable data FCRA 604 ( a ) : Inquiries reported with no permissible purpose These violations are causing ongoing credit harm. I am requesting immediate deletion of every disputed item and formal documentation showing the correction.,Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response,Experian Information Solutions Inc.,GA,30039,,Consent provided,Web,2025-08-03,Closed with explanation,Yes,N/A,15053245 1
which violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) : No reasonable investigation or results within 30 days FCRA 607 ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy FCRA 623 ( b ) : Continued reporting of unverifiable data FCRA 604 ( a ) : Inquiries reported with no permissible purpose These violations are causing ongoing credit harm. I am requesting immediate deletion of every disputed item and formal documentation showing the correction.,Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response,TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS 1
which violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Furnishers must accurately report the first date of delinquency. Using a later date may result in unlawful re-aging of the account. 1
which violates both the FDCPA and the FCRA. 1
which violates consumer law.,Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response,TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS 1
which violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ). 1
which violates FCRA 602 ( A ). If the creditor can not produce proof 2
which violates FCRA 604 ( a ) and 604 ( f ). 2
which violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ). 2
which violates FCRA 623 ( a ). 2
which violates FCRAs accuracy obligations. I demand full deletion and written confirmation that these addresses are permanently removed from my file. 1
which violates federal law. I request an immediate reinvestigation 2
which violates Michigan Truth in Renting Act. It was at this time ; I knew this company would continue their thieving ways and be up to no good and I was right! As corporate employees attempt to collect on the payment since XXXX until the time it was handed over to the debt collection agency 1
which violates my right to consent to such reporting under Section 1681c. I request the removal of any late payment reports associated with this account 1
which violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 3
which violates my rights under the FCRA. 1
which violates PayPals own policies. 1
which violates PayPals terms of serviceyet PayPal still took their side. 1
which violates the above statute. 1
which violates the Debt Relief Rule. 1
which violates the duty to maintain maximum possible accuracy. Remove this address immediately from my credit report and confirm the deletion in writing. 1
which violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Section 607 ( b ) requiring all information to be accurate and consistent and Section 611 3
which violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act and my consumer rights and the account should be immediately removed from my credit report. 1
which violates the FCRAs accuracy requirements and creates an unfair depiction of my credit standing. Because collections have a severe impact on consumer creditworthiness 3
which violates the FCRAs requirements for verifying debt accuracy and completeness. 2
which violates the FDCPA and FCRA. 1
which violates the following federal laws : FCRA 605B ( a ) : Requires removal of identity-theft-related accounts within 4 business days of receiving proper documentation. 1
which violates the protections provided under the CARES Act. 6
which violates the provisions of the FCRA ( 15 USC 1681 ). 2
which violates UCC 9-611. 1
which voids or reforms the contract under Louisianas consumer-credit statutes. 1
which was Inquiries are a factual record of file access. If you believe this was unauthorized 1
which was 5 days past my deadline. Because of this 1
which was 5 years ago 1
which was a bait and switch. Most of the people I was talking to struggled to speak XXXX ... I then wanted to pay the bill in full because I felt these people were very dishonest- and they refused to take my payment for the remainder of the balance! The last representative was quite rude 1
which was a balance well below the credit limit. This same amount was paid electronically on XX/XX/2016 1
which was a collection. They advised me to file a dispute 3
which was a Commercial loan with a non-owner occupied. She was under heavy duress and did not read the paperwork since there was a pressured Trustee Sale the very next day from the last lender. The Escrow Officer 1
which was a complete lie because the cushion chosen by XXXX XXXX XXXX was two months escrow payment of {$750.00}. It was the second lie from them because when I looked at my Escrow balance 1
which was a completely separate payment 1
which was a debit/credit audit that states the details of the audit are attached. However 1
which was a flat out lie 1
which was a key point in my dispute. 1
which was a one-time access code ). Maybe I could provide the proper documentation if XXXX would allow me access to my complete account 1
which was a scam because they took all my information to be never heard of. Then I was told to spend more money with another company for credit repair and I refused 1
which was a terrible experience as it usually is ( I was told the first agent 's effort apparently didn't work 1
which was absolutely necessary to manage the financial strain. The financial aid representative at XXXX that I reached out to put me in touch with her associate at Sallie Mae to help me navigate the situation. She thought they would be able to help me. This representative simply suggested that I refinance with XXXX when I could. 1
which was accepted by the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) and forwarded to XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/year>2024. Furthermore 1
which was accepted by the Internal Revenue Service XXXX IRS ) and forwarded to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>. Furthermore 1
which was accepted by the lender however 1

What this index shows

This is the master index of every company that appears in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Consumer Complaint Database, mirrored on PlainComplaint and grouped by institution so a single company page rolls up every complaint filed against that company across every product, state, and year since 2011. The CFPB began collecting consumer complaints when it was established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and has published them as a public dataset to give consumers, researchers, and journalists a window into how U.S. financial-services firms respond to customer concerns.

The default view is alphabetical by company name and paginated 50 companies per page. Use the sort controls to re-order by total complaint volume (highest first), timely-response percentage (best response track record first), or most recent complaint activity (companies with the freshest reports). Each row links to a dedicated company page showing year-over-year complaint trends, the top complaint products, complaint issues, top states by volume, and a year-by-year breakdown of complaint counts and response timeliness.

How to compare companies fairly

Raw complaint volume is a function of two things: how many customers the company serves, and how it handles those customers. A nationwide bank with tens of millions of accounts can show six-figure complaint counts simply because of its scale; a smaller regional lender with a few hundred complaints may actually have a higher per-customer complaint rate. The "Timely Response %" column shows the share of complaints the company answered within the CFPB's deadline, a stronger comparable metric across firms of different sizes. Pair it with the volume column to form a fuller picture, and dig into the company page for the breakdown by product so you can see whether issues are concentrated in a single line of business (for example, credit reporting) or spread across the entire firm.

Complaint records are consumer-submitted narratives. The CFPB does not adjudicate or verify the facts in each report before publishing; companies are given the opportunity to respond, dispute, or resolve. Many complaints are resolved with monetary or non-monetary relief. The strength of the dataset is in its scale, millions of records spanning every major U.S. consumer financial category, and its neutrality: it reports what consumers said, regardless of the company's perspective. Treat individual records accordingly, and lean on aggregate patterns (top issues, year-over-year trends, state distribution) when drawing conclusions.

What the dataset covers

The CFPB Consumer Complaint Database covers complaints against banks, credit-card issuers, mortgage servicers, debt collectors, payday lenders, student-loan servicers, money-transfer companies, prepaid-card issuers, credit bureaus, auto-finance lenders, and other financial products and services regulated by the agency. Complaints are categorized by product (the broad financial-services category) and sub-product, and again by issue (the specific consumer concern, e.g. "incorrect information on your report") and sub-issue. Year-by-year coverage runs from 2011 to present, with monthly refreshes published by the CFPB.

PlainComplaint refreshes from the agency's public release on a regular cadence and re-derives all aggregate counts, rankings, and trend lines on each refresh, so the page you're reading reflects the latest snapshot of the public database. See the methodology page for the full data pipeline, dedup rules, and the refresh schedule, or browse by other dimensions: issues, products, or states.